Sorry. You seem to have missed the point…
I told you what Ed Dames is planning to do on live Japanese tv. If he does as he says, are you interested in the results? Or is your mind completely closed on this topic?
Let’s say, just for laughs, 
that he does solve a crime for the Japanese police. What will your position be then?
Btw, being on Coast To Coast neither increases the truth of a person’s position, nor reduces it. The truth remains the truth, no matter the venue…
If he “solves a crime” the way that psychics are notorious for doing it I don’t see why it would change anyone’s mind.
Also, material presented on a specific show is effected by the reputation of a specific show, just the way you might hold some people’s opinions in higher esteem than others.
There are a few reasons for this, mostly involving the other content that the show has. One reason that is relevant to the current discussion, is how ‘discerning’ is the show with regard to what it will present?
If there are 100 different programs, and 2% of them have a reputation for regularly disseminating false information, then any information that only shows up on one or both of those channels should be doubted immidiately. If it wasn’t false, who didn’t the material end up on some of the other channels?
In short: if you watch conservative channels, you filter accordingly. If you watch liberals, the same. And if you watch extremely disreputable TV, let’s hope you’re doing it for the humor value.
truth of the matter does not equal credibility
someone w/ a greta deal of credibility can be wrong about the truth of the matter just as someone w/ the truth of the matter can have very little credibility
Facts and logic pretty much stand or fall on their own.
I was refering to the credibility of the show and the views it puts foreward, not the truth of some specific person’s possition. Without proof, we have to rely on what we know. And knowing that something came from Coast to Coast, considering that the vast majority of their claims seem to be entirely false and/or meritless, definatly casts suspicion upon it. There is very little that could come from that show that I would not consider at least slightly suspect, in some way.
And I doubt him “solving” the crime will prove anything. If he were to arrive, walk them right to the criminal, present them with loads of evidence, etc, and all stuff he couldn’t have known beforehand, then that’s definatly something to look into. If he just goes there and makes some vague claims that could be right, and are later proven to be right, I wouldn’t be impressed at all. I’ve done the same, before. Like for the DC sniper. I guessed the shooter was “most likely”: American, ex-millitary, of a non-sniper MOS, shooting from the vehicle, with a partner eho drove the vehicle. Am I psychic? No, I just made use of common sense, logic, and a good swipe of Ocham’s razor, and made reasonable guesses as to what would be the most likely case.
In fact, you could say I “cold read” the DC sniper.
Of course, nobody would say I “caught” them, now would they? But if it had been some major psychic figure that had made those same calls, I’m sure there would be many who would say he pointed police in the right direction…
And a friend of mine told me the week before they were caught that he believed the sniper was a pair of Americans, one older and one younger, the older one military or ex-military, and the younger one overawed or controlled by the older one. My friend makes no claim to psychic powers.
Your statement is wrong as usual with skeptics, I claimed to have proof that NDEs are not hallucinations, and that proof is there if you wish to read it.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research02.html
While you are at it, take this link over, it is an excellent view of life after death.
You were asked for proof, Lekatt. Your link to near-death.com is only a page of quotes from such “scientists” as Edgar Cayce and Betty Eadie.
Perhaps you intended for us to jump to the index/home page at that site. If so, I find more internal links to such related topics as Spirituality, Afterlife, and Reincarnation. Not a single reference to any studies in those.
Ah! What have we here? A link to Science, where we find this text:
Wow, that takes my breath away. There is much more, all in the same (serious?) vein, but I think most people get the drift by now. Not exactly my definition of science.
So here we have it, folks. Lekatt was asked for proof the NDE’s are not hallucinations, and this is the best we get. :rolleyes:
But I do like the “mental flatulence” quip. 
I find it incredible that my posts can’t be read accurately. Read it again, I never intended that link to be my proof. Below is the post I was referring too.
Originally posted by Azael
If you could have but the slightest glimmer of how you undermine your own arguments by your own statements lekatt…
The “it’s all just a theory” bit is a very tired, very old rhetorical trick that has nothing to do with how useful knowledge is disseminated. You are naively suggesting an equivalence that does not exist based on a misapprehension of how terms like “theory,” “fact,” and “proof” are used in the context of science. As obvious as it is that you rejected scientific methods when they did not mix with your hallucinations, I am not sure that me pointing this out will help at all. After all, all you need to do is make a supposed link between athiesm, skepticism and evolution and suddenly you have made a “valid point.” Suffice to say that you haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about and are in no position to criticize science, skeptics or atheists.
You do a fine job of making yourself out to be a martyr for your cause on this board lekatt, but the simple truth is that you haven’t had a leg to stand on from the very beginning. Your repsonse has been to muddy the waters, making claims that “all points of view are valid” or “anything is possible.” Then make grandiose statements about how we “have much to learn.” Sure we are all still learning. Sure anything is possible lekatt, but that does not mean that there aren’t kooks out there who believe things that have no basis in reality. Is that you? How do we know? Should we reject a disciplined approach to evaluating new knowledge and strange claims just because you say so? Because you had a hallucination that feels real to you? Is that why I should take your word for it that “cold reading doesn’t exist?” It isn’t just because you don’t like what it implies?
What it really comes down to is this.
Ok, your first paragraph changes nothing in my original post. What I said was fact and still is fact.
Now, you went on to claim my NDE was an hallucination, this is the greatest insult one can give a near death experiencer.
You further state you believe in a disciplined approach to evaluating claims, so I am going to give you the opportunity to use this approach on your own claims. I will provide some links to material proving near death experiences are not hallucinations. These links will contain a controlled scientific approach to prove the validity of NDEs.
The first link is the Pam Reynolds surgery, it alone is enough to prove NDEs are not hallucinations. It is pretty hard to have a hallucination when you are stone-cold dead.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
http://www.rnw.nl/special/en/html/030223neardeath.html
Now it is your turn to prove your claim that NDEs are hallucinations, with a scientific disciplined approach. I am waiting for your proof.
Oh, Yes, and the claims by skeptics that psychics use cold readings has yet to be proved. Real proof needs to be shown that this happens or skeptics will have to stop slandering psychics.
http://www.edconrad.com/lifeafterdeath/index.html
http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/start.html
Here is some more stuff for you to read.
Now, there is a great deal of reference to science in skeptical posts but little evidence of the use of any of it in their remarks about psychics and other spiritual people. If you are going to claim they are frauds or even misguided you do need proof or your posts are meaningless.
The general public knows a lot more about psychics than skeptics do. They watch them on TV or hear them on the radio, they may know one, or work with one. So when skeptics make their off-color remarks about psychics the general public ain’t listening, they know better. It seems the only people listening are other skeptics, so all of this debunking is really for themselves.
When I started posting on this board, I felt a lot of fear, hate, and frustation in the posts of the skeptics, as I continued it only grew and expanded. Skeptics put out a negative force that can’t help but hurt them. Negative people are fearful, depressed, and unhappy most of the time. Positive people are not. This may be an opportunity to let-go of negative thoughts by reading about NDEs. They are very positive events and have helped many to live better, more joyful lives.
Love
Leroy
The fact that a professional psychic has a definition for cold reading showed that most of your last post is just a silly rationalization.
Your demonstrated lack of attention is the main reason why I realize not even your experiences should be trusted.
lekatt, thank you for noticing my post. The thing is, I’m not sure how much you answered it. Dunno what you mean by the word “proof”, but when you talk to me, you mean this:
If you have PROVED something, then you have demonstrated that every single alternative is IMPOSSIBLE. This is very very difficult, particularly since all human observation is subject to doubt. That’s right, all of it. This is why two people can look at the same thing, and come to different conclusions. (Like, “That guy’s a psychic!” and “That guy’s a charlatan!” Surely you agree that people observe things differently.) Because all human obesrvation is subject to doubt, virtually the only place that you actually see PROOF of thinks is in mathematics or formalized symbolic logic. And in both of those cases, everybody has to assume (and agree upon) some things first anyway.
That’s what I mean by the term ‘proof’. Then and now, I’d be mightily surprised if you had PROOF of NDEs. If you did, then we could all examine it, and would be forced to conclude what you assert.
Not gonna happen. What you probably can claim to have is evidence. So far, I have gleaned that you have had what is known as a NDE. You didn’t actually describe it in response to my post, so you leave me with little to go on. Perhaps it’s a private personal experience that you cannot relate; I don’t know. You may have said something earlier, but I’m new to this thread, remember.
So, I’m going to ask, why do you believe in NDEs? If you like, you can relate how you acquired a belief in psychics as well.
Oh, and I don’t need a rack of links. I’ve already got a rack of links. You provided it just now. Based on the, uh, greek chorus, they’re not convincing anybody of anything, or at least not anything you agree with.
A word of advice: keep it simple. Keep it factual. “After my experience, I got on the internet and read a number of articles that described experiences similar to my own” is better than “There are many sites that prove that NDEs exist.”
This is impossible, I could come up with a zillion alternatives to anything, and most of them could not be eliminated, and how could you ever be sure ALL alternative explanations had been considered? What an absurd idea of proof. And there is nothing wrong with personal experience, in fact, it is all we have to guide us through this world, everything we learn, we learn through personal experience. We read books, listen to lectures, study the experiences of others to learn from them. All this is personal experience. You take these definitions out on the street in the real world and they will laugh at you.
Skeptics claim that Psychics use cold readings, the burden of proof lies with the accusers–now let them prove it. The logic is simple and straight forward. The same as used in our judicial system. Skeptics must show real proof of same, not some mumbo jumbo about “well, they could/might of used them.” Sorry, that doesn’t work in the real world.
The links show real proof of NDEs, and you can all read them. If you claim they are not real, then you will need to back up your claim with solid proof. Otherwise, it is just your opinion, to which you are entitled.
I believe in NDEs because I have experienced one personally, and researched them for over 15 years now.
You are correct, thousands of people have had near death experiences. These experiences are unique, yet carry a thread of truth though them all. Just keep reading and researching.
If you had experienced one you would be in my position now.
Actually, NDEs show only a tip of the iceburg of the spiritual world. Almost everyone in existence has had a spiritual experience. The field is enormous and the literature dates back 4000 years. Scientists are not going to explain away the spiritual nature of man no matter what they use. The reason they can’t is that spiritual experiences, miracles, and other things beyond the limited reach of science will just go on happening everyday.
If you want a definition and proof of NDEs you can find them on my site.
http://ndeweb.com/Proof.htm
http://ndeweb.com/wildcard
Now I am sure you and others could come up with a few hundred alternative explanations of everything on my site. Anybody could, including me, but that would prove absolutely nothing without validation of those alternative explanations. You would still have to prove they were true. I do not accept your definition of what proof is, if this is science now, leave me out of it, it is not logical. These are real experiences by real people, just believe it or not.
Love
Leroy
DNFTT
But his NCCF makes for such a fascinating case study!
If Ed Dames solves a crime that the Japanese police have not been able to solve, will that convince you?
If the Japanese police say he solved even one crime for them, will you accept their word?
Or will you dismiss it as a lucky guess?
It obviously can’t be a case of cold reading if he solves a crime that stumped the police. There would be nothing to read.
Doc,
I’d like to actualize myself. Can you help me?
Whether or not he solves a crime is a conclusion not a fact. If he is given credit for solving a crime, it is a fact that he got credit for it, not that he solved it.
If Dames produced specific information that was unobtainable from any other source I’d be interested enough to look into it. It hardly sounds as if there will be any strict controls in the situation you’re describing.